User talk:The Quixotic Potato/crap

How can I disable Flow so I can use my talkpage???

Hi. Some thoughts on your comments at Talk:Code of Conduct/Draft:

• This place only works because of the communities.
• This place is founded on m:Eventualism, the idea that things are currently imperfect, with occasional regressions, but that they slowly improve if people collaborate over long periods of time.
• The communities are made up of individuals who volunteer their free time, or who work in various areas professionally and semi-professionally (from chapter/affiliate/WMF staff, to educators and archivists and Wikipedians in Residence and more).
• Those individuals come from every culture and country. Those individuals are generally of the geekier archetypes, but with a huge variety of aptitudes for various technical and social and linguistic areas.
• Individual people generally don't respond well to aggressive or rude communication. Many of them give up, or don't become regular contributors in the first place, if they're met with aggression and hostility and insults and impatience.
• Not actively undermining the morale of individuals, is necessary for keeping the individuals in the communities motivated to keep returning. It's not meant to be blissful, but it should not be filled with dread.
• The projects are not censored. We have (or will have) articles and content on every notable topic (or other project inclusion standards), and we obviously have to be able to discuss them all. But that doesn't give everyone free license to use every aggressive rhetorical flourish available.
• Attacking the individuals is demoralizing, demotivating, and depressing. The individual you've attacked on the Code of Conduct talkpage, has been a volunteer editor for 12 years and a volunteer-and-then-professional developer for half those years. You wrote "your stupidity is offensive to me" which is a direct personal attack.
• This place only works because of the communities.
• Certain best practices in social interaction are necessary, in order to keep the communities thriving. I.e. certain minimal efforts. -- Just like with the content, we have to put in more than a minimal amount of effort towards the people we're working alongside. Even if they're imperfect (and most humans are), we have to try to give the benefit of doubt, try to assume good intentions, try to help each other do better. Even if the content is imperfect (and it often is), we have to start off with the assumption that it might be improvable, as somebody else (or many people) was hopefully doing their best to improve the projects.
• Hundreds of groups form or adopt a Code of Conduct, and we have many similar policies and guidelines in the Wikimedia content projects, some of which are listed/linked at m:Code of conduct. The technical community (focused on/around Mediawikiwiki) does not currently have anything similar, except for at in-person events, but this current draft is one step along the way to improving that circumstance.
• Communities without basic principles of expected empathy, tend to fall apart, from tribalism and in-fighting and divisiveness and outsider-hostility. Cf. thousands of people who abandoned projects (like Wikimedia or Python) which they weren't enjoying participating in anymore, despite being contributors of valuable content.
• This place only works because of the communities. We're trying to help the communities to not only survive (which they're just about managing), but to thrive.
• Wikimedia should be one of the most valued and respected movements on the planet, but amongst other things, we currently have a widespread reputation for hostility and impatience towards both newcomers and regular contributors. We [all need to] try to do better than we did yesterday, every day. It's not easy, because there are thousands of complexities; with the contents, with the code, with the people. But it only works because of the people, and because the people acknowledge, and adapt to, and slowly improve the complexities.

Hope some of that helps, if/when you return.

You can express your opinion there freely, as others have for the past year and a half of discussions.

But you have now been reverted multiple times by multiple people for disrupting months-old, already-resolved sections, editing other people's strike-throughs (some that they have added themselves to their own responses, some who were late votes, which was clearly explained in each case as a matter of process), and you are now edit-warring to continue this.

Please cease doing so, or you will be blocked.

As far as I know I have struck through all comments that were struck by the author, and unstruck all those that were struck by someone other than the author. If I missed one then please let me know.

There are no already-resolved sections. None of the sections of that draft have consensus behind them. There are no votes, we call them !votes for a reason. You are not in a position to determine which !votes are late (if any). People are still free to !vote.

If you continue acting like this, or block me, then I might take some time out of my busy day to start an RfC or two, which most likely means that there will be no COC. I would actually prefer it if there was one, but of course we need one that is a hell of a lot better than the draft I discovered.

You arrive to a discussion that's been conducted for over a year and a half, making unilateral decisions about what you view as "the proper process". This wouldn't be acceptable in any wiki, not just here.

You are more than welcome to raise your concerns and argue your points in the discussion page - but do avoid editing text and adding so-called collapsible commentary and conducting edit-warring.

In reality WP:CONSENSUS has widespread support. I do not understand why the WMF keeps antagonizing the various communities by ensuring that they do not get a say. Maybe you have a tiny group of people (most of whom work for the WMF) who think that that draft is awesome. But I can introduce you to the enwiki community, which has many members that will disagree with the draft as I found it and will be displeased about the way the WMF treated members of the community.

A tiny group of people has been talking about this draft for a very long time. The result was very bad (I made many improvements and it is still quite bad). You should've asked the communities for input.

WMF staffers should stop reverting, and if you do not want those comments to be put in collapse templates then you can remove them or strike through them. Do you have a better suggestion?

You guys don't mind striking through someone else's posts, but when misleading and incorrect posts made by someone who works for the WMF get collapsed then it is a big problem?

Hi,

I'm not a WMF staffer, but I'm concerned with your behavior too, especially this kind of edit, which can't reasonnably be evaluated as constructive: as soon as you know an edit isn't consensual, you need to get a consensus before to further edit sections on a wiki.

Furthermore, the kind of edits you done can't be interpreted as good faith attempt to improve the CoC: in the diff linked, you suggest it's only from pure whim code will be interpreted and you support fat shaming. These elements can't really be interpreted as a nice and constructive behavior.

So, I've blocked your account, indefinitely as it's a wiki protection measure. If you wish to make constructive comments about the CoC, and have a more civilized discussion pattern, your talk page is currently still open.

This block doesn't infringe your right to express concerns about CoC, you can still do this on any personal space, site, blog you wish, but your pattern of modification isn't welcome here, as it prevents regular discussions.

@Dereckson ????

WTF???

You wrote: ": in the diff linked, you suggest it's only from pure whim code will be interpreted and you support fat shaming. "

You also wrote: "This account isn't genuinely interested to make edits on CoC, but only to disrupt the process."

Retract your false accusations (I count at least three) and apologize immediately. Why do you make those false claims?

Oh, and unblock me.

@MSchottlender-WMF look what happened ^^

The statements above are facts based on how this diff where you remove "body size" and where you introduce like/dislike ideas can be interpreted, and not accusations. Furthermore, the block is entirely justified not by the content, but by your edit pattern, the fact you edit war instead of seeking a consensus.

As I see you aren't considering your block as a request to have a decent and nice behavior, I'm adjusting the block settings to remove talk page right too.